If possible, it would be great to have a modern firmware, like Narsil, or Anduril, if it’s ready in time. I know most people will probably want the UI to be simple. So the default should be set to a simple mode group. But, for the rest of us, it will be nice knowing we can change to something more interesting. Especially for those of us who are still not flashing our own yet.

I for one, am REALLY wanting the lightening mode with this lantern!

It’ll mostly depend on what DBSAR wants, but for now I’m planning on porting Anduril to it and adjusting the default settings. So you’ll most likely get lightning storm mode, and candle flicker mode, and maybe other stuff. If it has a switch LED it’ll be possible to set the switch LED to high/low/off when the main emitter is off.

This also means you can have a mode group or ramping, and the mode group can be whatever you want… as long as you want 2 or more evenly-spaced levels in sorted order. Want 3 steps? Use 3 steps. Want 18 steps? Use 18 steps. Don’t like moon? Raise the floor. Etc.

Thermal regulation likely won’t even be relevant, so it’s not waiting on me to tweak that for better behavior. Mostly, I’m just waiting for hardware so I can add support for it. It’ll have to use a pin for voltage measurement like on older BLF drivers, and the power control is a little different, and it’ll need ramp adjustments and stuff. But that shouldn’t be hard.

I am very open to having mode “sets” and hidden options that can make the lantern very versatile, and to make it fill as many of BLF members mode likes too. After so much testing with the prototype, ( and all the othr lanterns i modded & built using different drivers and mode firmware, I feel as long as the main default mode is the most used: “Moonlight -Low-Medium-High” set, and other sets can be including a ramping set, and sets including the lightening effect mode, and a candle flicker mode.

The USB implementation is especially important, everything runs via USB these days, would be great if it could also act as a USB battery bank/5V power source for other devices.

Having a USB charging and charger output option on this lantern would definitely be a real great benefit for off grid & camping use, especially if high-capacity cells are used, (3500mah or higher X-4 ) it would be a powerful powerbank & a long run time lantern. The ability to charge a phone & run a lantern and even be charged via solar charger at the same time would make it the perfect long term off grid or long duration expedition valuable tool.

I am very open to having mode “sets” and hidden options that can make the lantern very versatile, and to make it fill as many of BLF members mode likes too. After so much testing with the prototype, ( and all the othr lanterns i modded & built using different drivers and mode firmware, I feel as long as the main default mode is the most used: “Moonlight -Low-Medium-High” set, and other sets can be including a ramping set, and sets including the lightening effect mode, and a candle flicker mode.

And if its not to difficult or complex a battery-voltage check hidden mode option?

Well, battcheck is “hidden” on 3-clicks-from-off, if that counts. The blinkies aren’t part of any mode groups; they’re off in their own separate part of the UI. Specifically, it has two blinky groups tied to triple-click:

Click 3 times from “off” but hold the third click: Biking, tactical strobe, motion-freezing strobe, lightning storm, candle flicker. Remembers which one was used last. Everything except lightning is adjustable.

Instead of a 2-second and 4-second beacon, it has an adjustable-speed beacon where you tell it how many seconds each cycle should take.

SOS doesn’t exist but is easy to add… if anyone cares. The most interest I’ve seen in it is speculation that someone somewhere might care.

There are basically two regular-output UIs — smooth ramping or a mode group. They use the same actions for the same purposes, but one is smooth while the other has a specfic number of discrete levels. Those actions are:

From off:

1 click: Turn on at memorized level.

Hold: Turn on at lowest level. Keep holding to get brighter.

2 clicks: Turn on at ceiling level. Repeat to go to full turbo, if it’s higher than the ceiling. Once at full turbo, repeat to go back to memorized level.

2 clicks, but hold second click: Turn on at ceiling, then keep holding to get dimmer.

The default can be moon/low/med/high, and regular use can be explained in just 8 words: Click for on/off, hold to change brightness.

That mode set up is good. As long as the default is the 4-modes, ( which seems to be the most used mode-type i have tested and used in the field in a lantern) I’m not sure if a “turbo” mode is practical with a lantern as with lanterns they are usually continuous-run lights, and turbo would overheat the LED heatsink head after some time. (unless the turbo mode can be set to drop to the default high mode after a maximum of 1 minute.) i found during tests that even a XM-L2 run at 1.07 amps for 30 minutes continuously or more heats up the large solid aluminum heatsink head to 60 plus degrees C. (which is somewhat hot to the touch for a child if one did touch the lantern.

I am very open to having mode “sets” and hidden options that can make the lantern very versatile, and to make it fill as many of BLF members mode likes too. After so much testing with the prototype, ( and all the othr lanterns i modded & built using different drivers and mode firmware, I feel as long as the main default mode is the most used: “Moonlight -Low-Medium-High” set, and other sets can be including a ramping set, and sets including the lightening effect mode, and a candle flicker mode.

And if its not to difficult or complex a battery-voltage check hidden mode option?

Well, battcheck is “hidden” on 3-clicks-from-off, if that counts. The blinkies aren’t part of any mode groups; they’re off in their own separate part of the UI. Specifically, it has two blinky groups tied to triple-click:

Click 3 times from “off” but hold the third click: Biking, tactical strobe, motion-freezing strobe, lightning storm, candle flicker. Remembers which one was used last. Everything except lightning is adjustable.

Instead of a 2-second and 4-second beacon, it has an adjustable-speed beacon where you tell it how many seconds each cycle should take.

SOS doesn’t exist but is easy to add… if anyone cares. The most interest I’ve seen in it is speculation that someone somewhere might care.

There are basically two regular-output UIs — smooth ramping or a mode group. They use the same actions for the same purposes, but one is smooth while the other has a specfic number of discrete levels. Those actions are:

From off:

1 click: Turn on at memorized level.

Hold: Turn on at lowest level. Keep holding to get brighter.

2 clicks: Turn on at ceiling level. Repeat to go to full turbo, if it’s higher than the ceiling. Once at full turbo, repeat to go back to memorized level.

2 clicks, but hold second click: Turn on at ceiling, then keep holding to get dimmer.

The default can be moon/low/med/high, and regular use can be explained in just 8 words: Click for on/off, hold to change brightness.

I have four Q8’s and I love them. The default ramping mode is perfect for my use. That said, the ramping mode you describe seems to work pretty much the same as Narsil in my Q8 with some extra blinkie settings for good measure. Am I right about this?

If I had known about this lantern project I would have only bought two Q8’s and gotten two or three of the lanterns. My reason for getting the extra Q8’s was for emergency lighting with a diffuser, basically a poor mans lantern.

What about moving the U4 to be within the inner circle? You’d still have to make a gap in the v+ ring to let the thermal plane thru, but it could be masked and safely bridged across with the brass ring. Is that possible or am I dreaming?

Thanks for the inputs David!

The layout of the BQ chip and related components is very restrictive, but I could maybe swing it if I flip that part of the circuit 180 degrees. Was even considering having only a 4-6 pads for the brass ring in that case, spaced equally for better stability. Will give it another go.

As you mentioned 4-layer is the other way out. That does take complexity and cost up a notch, especially for the blind/buried vias we need. We would need to talk to the manufacturer before we go this way.

Given that a separate small PCB is going to be needed for the USB connectors, would there be any merit in including some or all of the powerbank/charger function onto this PCB, if it would make the main PCB and brass ring easier ?

It might be more cost effective than e.g. a 4 layer main PCB, or extra machining of the brass ring and special masking and assembly processes.

Please could consideration be given to mechanical reverse polarity/short circuit protection, I note that we have now had a report of this occurring “in the field” on a Q8.

A remote control using RF “plipper” would also be a great feature if possible.

the ramping mode you describe seems to work pretty much the same as Narsil in my Q8 with some extra blinkie settings for good measure. Am I right about this?

Narsil was the sword of Isildur, which once defeated Sauron. Andúril was the sword of Aragorn, the blade Narsil reforged. If it looks similar, it’s because it is.

Basic operation hasn’t changed much, but it has changed:

“Hold” always goes up… unless it was already at maximum or it has been less than a second since the last ramp-up. So, no need to remember which way the ramp is going.

“Click, release, hold” was added, and always ramps down. No need to ramp up first.

The mode group UI is exactly the same as the ramping UI, except with stair-steps instead of a smooth ramp. No need to remember two different UIs.

Accepts slower clicks (~0.4s instead of ~0.3s), since people were having trouble with that.

So, usage is very very similar. However, under the hood it’s completely different, a from-scratch rewrite using totally different abstractions.

One of the bigger UI changes is how things are configured. Instead of one large config mode, config settings are attached to the mode they affect. To change a config option, go to the mode you want to configure and then either hold the button (for things like strobe speed)… or click three times (for numeric config settings) then click N times (to set the value to N). For example:

Want to change the bike flasher brightness? Go to bike mode and hold the button.

Want to change the beacon timing? Go to beacon mode, triple-click to enter beacon config, then click N times to set the cycle to N seconds.

Want to change the button brightness for soft lockout mode? Go to lockout then click three times to cycle it between low, high, and off.

Want to change between smooth ramp and mode group? Go to a normal illumination mode then click three times.

There are also a variety of other little details changed, like the soft lockout mode also acts as a momentary moon mode so you don’t have to unlock the light to see while digging through a bag or something. And moon should get about 3X to 4X as much runtime, with more stable brightness, due to under-clocking the MCU at the lowest levels.

Please could consideration be given to mechanical reverse polarity/short circuit protection, I note that we have now had a report of this occurring “in the field” on a Q8.

Do you think this is worth eliminating the possibility of using flat-top cells?

Er, it uses the same BAT+ contact ring design as the Q8… which means no truly flat-top cells should work. It could perhaps have a plastic ring for some sort of mechanical reverse polarity protection, but it would restrict cell choice even more.

I was only referencing the fact that mechanical polarity protection does require the use of button top cells and hoping to be able to use flat top cells.

I was not familiar with the similarities between this driver design and the Q8 design and given the success and design work already put in, and the issues with burnt springs on the Q8 like you linked to Tom, I think it’s a good decision to incorporate something to eliminate the 14 potentially hazardous situations.

I’ve heard that people occasionally put batteries in backward. I don’t really understand it, but I guess it happens sometimes. Fortunately, the Q8 already has a way to deal with potentially-hazardous situations. When a cell was inserted backward, the springs worked exactly as designed and acted as a fuse to prevent any serious issues.

Maybe a thin plastic ring could be added for additional protection. Maybe not. Not sure if it’ll be a feasible option. One was part of the Q8 design for a while, but then it didn’t happen. It’d be nice, but not having it isn’t a huge loss.

Maybe a thin plastic ring could be added for additional protection. Maybe not. Not sure if it’ll be a feasible option. One was part of the Q8 design for a while, but then it didn’t happen. It’d be nice, but not having it isn’t a huge loss.

I think it could work.

Not a huge loss on a lantern, unless you actually were relying on it to be a lantern, for light, in the outdoors, and to “just work”, with maybe little or no backup. Rather than a plaything. Better carry a few candles too.

Could be quite a big loss, if the springs are bypassed on a tuned-up Q8. We haven’t seen that, yet.

Surely this is a fundamental for any lantern to be taken seriously, i.e. ruggedness, reliability and fool-proofness, in all hands, young to old, not necessarily indoctrinated in arcane LiIOn procedures. I’m not sure I am hearing this loud and clear.

Just a worrier, who sometimes doesn’t get cells in the right way around, an imperfect human.

… fool-proofness, in all hands, young to old, not necessarily indoctrinated in arcane LiIOn procedures.

Just a worrier, … an imperfect human.

A worrier paints a vivid picture which sticks easily in the minds of people who see it, often overriding a more accurate map of reality in which the meaningful risks lie elsewhere. People spend inordinate amounts of time and effort worrying about one-in-a-million risks while ignoring things which are actually likely to happen. This has a cost, and can be contagious. On an individual basis it’s a relatively small opportunity cost, but when repeated on a larger societal scale it has bigger and more meaningful consequences. So I try not to encourage people to focus on unlikely risks.

Several companies have been using the contact-ring design for several years with a near-zero rate of incidents, so I expect the risks involved are very small. This is probably because it’s common knowledge that batteries have a right way and a wrong way; it is not an arcane or chemistry-specific procedure.

If you know you are personally at a high risk though, it’s fairly easy to prevent issues by applying a bit of non-conductive tape or shrink wrap. For example, a bit of tape over the outer edge of the contact ring, or an extra layer of tape or wrap on the batteries to recess the negative pole. I’ve done something like this with good results — my bench power supply is on a wire shelf so I wrapped nearby surfaces with kapton tape to avoid accidental shorts where I do electrical testing. And, after burning myself one day during a test, I make sure my clip leads are shrouded.

Anyway, if it’s feasible to do so, I’d like to add a plastic layer on the edges of the contact ring to improve fool-proofness. Even a small risk is worth avoiding if there is no significant cost in doing so. But given how rarely it has been an issue in past products, I don’t think it’d be a big problem if it didn’t happen. Other design details have a higher priority.

Anyway, if it’s feasible to do so, I’d like to add a plastic layer on the edges of the contact ring to improve fool-proofness. Even a small risk is worth avoiding if there is no significant cost in doing so. But given how rarely it has been an issue in past products, I don’t think it’d be a big problem if it didn’t happen. Other design details have a higher priority.

Then we are agreed. By the way, the Q8 brass ring is different, it is small in diameter, and only just meets the centre of the cell buttons, so they have a natural tendency to tilt when put in the wrong way around, so are more likely to make contact when reversed.

Traditional SRKs with no brass ring, just a flat driver surface, or other designs with brass rings that have better contact with the buttons, are less susceptible. For these, decent wrappers on the negative of the cells are probably enough to prevent contact when reversed.

Not necessarily so on the Q8, and it cannot be denied that it has happened, at least twice, and I am sure will again.

The USB implementation is especially important, everything runs via USB these days, would be great if it could also act as a USB battery bank/5V power source for other devices.

Having a USB charging and charger output option on this lantern would definitely be a real great benefit for off grid & camping use, especially if high-capacity cells are used, (3500mah or higher X-4 ) it would be a powerful powerbank & a long run time lantern. The ability to charge a phone & run a lantern and even be charged via solar charger at the same time would make it the perfect long term off grid or long duration expedition valuable tool.

I agree This is important.
But also needs to be water proof , I know I sometimes get caught in the rain camping

I will be performing some tests eventually soon (if the weather don’t get to bad when i get it ready to test) (outdoors under controlled conditions of exactly those scenarios. ( 1 cell in reverse against the other three and full connection made. ) and other tests like a depleted cell thrown in the 4-paralell config with three fully charged. ( if any cells survive the first tests) I will build a jig to hold the cells with 10-gauge solid copper wire 8 feet to a 50 amp switch)

… fool-proofness, in all hands, young to old, not necessarily indoctrinated in arcane LiIOn procedures.

Just a worrier, … an imperfect human.

A worrier paints a vivid picture which sticks easily in the minds of people who see it, often overriding a more accurate map of reality in which the meaningful risks lie elsewhere. People spend inordinate amounts of time and effort worrying about one-in-a-million risks while ignoring things which are actually likely to happen. This has a cost, and can be contagious. On an individual basis it’s a relatively small opportunity cost, but when repeated on a larger societal scale it has bigger and more meaningful consequences. So I try not to encourage people to focus on unlikely risks.

Several companies have been using the contact-ring design for several years with a near-zero rate of incidents, so I expect the risks involved are very small. This is probably because it’s common knowledge that batteries have a right way and a wrong way; it is not an arcane or chemistry-specific procedure.

If you know you are personally at a high risk though, it’s fairly easy to prevent issues by applying a bit of non-conductive tape or shrink wrap. For example, a bit of tape over the outer edge of the contact ring, or an extra layer of tape or wrap on the batteries to recess the negative pole. I’ve done something like this with good results — my bench power supply is on a wire shelf so I wrapped nearby surfaces with kapton tape to avoid accidental shorts where I do electrical testing. And, after burning myself one day during a test, I make sure my clip leads are shrouded.

Anyway, if it’s feasible to do so, I’d like to add a plastic layer on the edges of the contact ring to improve fool-proofness. Even a small risk is worth avoiding if there is no significant cost in doing so. But given how rarely it has been an issue in past products, I don’t think it’d be a big problem if it didn’t happen. Other design details have a higher priority.

Because the lantern will be of a lower amps draw/load, maybe even four fusible links between the four negative traces on the bottom cap PCB is possible? ( 5 or 10 amp flat SMD fuses are cheap, and if one cell manages to contact then the fuse for that leg can blow to open the short.